Legalise abortion

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Some of them claim that what is “added” is a unique sequence of Human DNA. But what makes “Human DNA” so special?

Depends upon your point of view. The capacity to think abstractly and 'conceive' rights is no more or less special either.

The question is ultimately what makes a person a person and not a random biological occurrence and there are numerous paradigms that have been proposed for this. Many modern ones revolve around vague neurological criteria that, as has been pointed out to you (and repeatedly ignored), are fraught with ethical problems. After all if we assign rights to our facility to conceive them (abstract thought) then infants have no rights. Even beyond this, such a system requires caveats to be introduced for those who never develop this facility or lose it later in life.

The genetic definition, while an inconvenience to pro-choice arguments, is more succinct, requires no caveats, is easily demonstrable and lacks the flaws of the more philosophical approaches.

In reality, it should not be an inconvenience to pro-choice arguments either, as even if it defines someone as a 'person' that does not mean that they automatically gain an absolute right to life. I say should, because the moment you define a fetus as a person, it becomes a baby in the minds of others and sentiment throws reason out of the argument thereafter.

And if “uniqueness” is so important then why do they not protect sperm? Sperms are in fact a unique sequence of DNA too as the process of Mitosis that create them does not just split the fathers DNA down the middle, but is actually unique due to a sub-process in mitosis called “recombination”.

Because no one has ever suggested that it is simply a question of 'unique' DNA, but 'unique' and 'complete' DNA - sperm and ova only hold half of the DNA chromosomes necessary for reproduction.

This was already pointed out to you back around November, I think.

Others claim that a “life” has been created but I also do not understand that position. What definition of “life” are they using? The sperm is “alive”. The egg is “alive. (gordons alive – sorry). After conception there is only a zygote “alive”. Where there was 2 there is now 1, so in some sense, depending on how you define “life” a DEATH has infact occurred, not a creation of life. As I said that wholly depends on the persons defintiion of life, it is not something I think myself.

There is a difference between something which is technically alive on a cellular level and something that is not only 'alive' but given the right environment has all then biological information to develop to maturity.

This was already pointed out to you back around November too, I think.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A bit of a throw away comment. I see no argument being presented that termination of a 16 week old foetus and “killing another” are in any way comparable statements.

By your earlier stated position, you should have no problem either with the termination of a 16 week old infant either. Your reaction to this uncomfortable conclusion appears to be indignant denial though.

Now maybe a couple of the users on this thread have disagreements on where AND how I myself espouse that border to be… but I have not heard one person argue against the idea yet that we all owe it to ourselves to identify and espouse where and why we think it should be, or that recognising there IS one is important enough to highlight that such throw away comments do not help us resolve one of the greatest and most challenging moral conundrums of our time.

I think we should argue it, but I don't think you are the right person to do so. You have fitted your theory to fit your expected conclusion, and have avoided all criticism to the point of ignoring it in the hope it goes away.

sparkling sea wrote: »

The right of any woman to have an abortion should she so choose should not come down to finances -which it does. No women should have to go to a money lender to get the money to travel, she should be able to avail of the service here.

LOL. The irony is that if abortion was available in Ireland, women would almost certainly be more likely to go abroad for both greater anonymity and better health care.

Alot of children live horrendous lives because they were unwanted and there is no point in them waiting for the HSE or Irish society to come to their rescue because if you look at the news on any given day, we don't rescue alot of them if anything we pretend they dont exist.

Please, regardless of one's position on abortion, that is a terrible argument. Essentially you are arguing for 'mercy killings'.

Would they be better off if they were never born, well if you believe in heaven(I don't but some do) - yes they would, so why force them to go through hell just to make the pro life camp feel better.

By that logic we probably should euthanize any such children to spare them any further anguish.

People who think abortion is wrong will never avail of this service, but that doesn't mean they should force others to travel to another country.

But that is not how law works - society decides what is right and wrong and then imposes it on everyone.

This may further impact on the future unborn - what about their rights to a happy life.

That all comes down to the status and rights assigned to the fetus. As a society we do no give license to people to peruse 'a happy life' at the expense of another. Then again, neither do we protect the right to life without exception either.

Your post is fine (except for the 'better off dead' bit, which really was appalling) as long as we all agree what terms a fetus has rights under (and that those rights protect it from termination or not). But unless you are preaching to the converted, you really have to rationally define these, and this is what this thread has been about.

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

hmmm it should be illegal to cut down woods and forestry and animal habitats because that way we kill other alive UNIQUE creatures too...kill their habitat you kill their food source and home = dead stuff i dont see any off you giving up your oak wardrobe or any other wood in your house to save the Unique alive creatures that feel pain and understand that they are alive!

If a fetus is no more deserving of rights protecting its life than an oak tree, then you are correct. But then you need to ask why is a fetus more like an oak tree than you or me? Is it a question of DNA? Does our capacity for higher consciousness make the difference? Is it, as I suspect, just a question of if it starts looking like something we can identity visually as a baby?

And even if it is more like us, that does not mean it should be protected. After all, the right to life is not absolute; if you desperately needed a lung to live, you could not force me to donate one of mine.

I think you are looking at the entire issue too simplistically. Indeed, most people do, because they focus only on the "is it a person" part, which is only half of the issue.

Im not sure where i stand with this topic... I think rape victims should have the option to terminate the baby etc... but people being stupid and not using protection shoould have to deal with the conquence, but i suppose its not until your actually in this situation you can really judge